- From: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 17:53:45 -0400
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKC-DJhHz1mk0vdVtwmwyccv=LqUb+GrYVukkUYJY4mWdHE-mg@mail.gmail.com>
Taking a careful read-through again, I think the cleanest thing to do is to change the ALTSVC frame structure to allow multiple alternatives. Note that the current text reads for the header: When an Alt-Svc response header field is received from an origin, its value invalidates and replaces all cached alternative services for that origin. but does not define anything similar for the ALTSVC frame. Aligning the frame and the header would allow this to apply to both. If we're changing the frame structure, I think it would be better to fold the port and host into a single field. Different non-TCP protocols may have different ways of defining ports that may not necessarily be 16 bits. To align them well, it also seems like it would make sense to have Ext-Param in the frame as well (which can be some to-be-defined-in-the-future string with the same format as ext-param in Alt-Svc header) For example: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max-Age (32) | +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+ | Num-AltAuth(8)| +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+ | Proto-Len(8) | Protocol-ID (*) | +---------------+-----------------------------------------------+ | AltAuth-Len(8)| Alt-Auth (*) ... +---------------+-----------------------------------------------+ | Origin-Len (8)| Origin? (*) ... +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ext-Param? (*) ... +---------------------------------------------------------------+ This would allow the same things to be expressed in the header and the frame. Erik On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 August 2014 15:09, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> wrote: > > With a set of options > > it becomes much more clear when the client can start taking action > > without needing to worry about thrashing. > > I think that I can concede that point. It will make the ALTSVC frame > uglier, but that's fine. > > > Additionally, how does a server remove/replace an ALTSVC record it set > > previously without waiting for a TTL expiration? > > That's only a problem if you forget about one. >
Received on Friday, 22 August 2014 21:54:12 UTC